Study: online sexual predators not like popular perception

A new study looks at the changing profile of the online child predator, and …

Even as sex crimes against minors decline, a new report from the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center released this week found an massive increase in the number of online child predators arrested in undercover sting operations. Despite this, the survey rejects the idea that the Internet is an especially perilous place for minors, and finds that while the nature of online sex crimes against minors changed little between 2000 and 2006, the profile of the offenders has been shifting—and both differ markedly from the popular conception.

Extrapolating from a nationwide survey of law enforcement agencies, the authors estimate that 2006 saw 615 arrests of online child predators in cases involving actual minors as victims (up 21 percent from 2000), and 3,100 arrests in cases where the "child" was actually an undercover law enforcement officer (a whopping 381 percent increase over 2000). During the same time period, the proportion of minors aged 12-17 on the Internet rose from 73 to 93 percent. Those numbers, the authors believe, don't represent an actual increase in the national pervert population, but rather reflect the broader trend over the same period of interactions moving online, combined with more vigorous police sting efforts.

In the vast majority of cases, it's worth noting, the child victims were teens who knowingly went to meet their older interlocutors intending to have sex, which may explain why stings so vastly outnumber actual-victim arrests. Though the victims are too young to legally consent to sex with an adult, relatively few cases involve physical coercion, which makes it likely that many—indeed, quite possibly a majority—don't come to the attention of law enforcement.

Social networking sites, the subject of much angst over online predators, were more or less unknown in 2000, but by 2006 accounted for 33 percent of the initial contacts between (actual) minors and adults in search of illicit sex. While online chat was still the most common medium for indecent proposals, it saw a corresponding drop in popularity—from 80 percent to 40 percent of initial contacts.

But while efforts at protecting kids from predation on those sites often focus on efforts to block registered sex offenders, these represented only a tiny fraction (2-4 percent) of the predators in the survey cases—though about a fifth had a record of some arrest unrelated to sex offenses. Similarly, while parents often worry that pedophiles will use photographs or other personal information on such sites to target kids for stalking or abduction, the authors found no evidence of that occurring. Indeed, all stalking cases the authors discovered involved adults persisting in contacting a minor after the end of (illicit but consensual) face-to-face relationships.

The most pronounced change the study found was in the profile of the adult offenders. The proportion of younger adult offenders, aged 18-25, rose from 23 percent to 40 percent of arrests in cases with actual underage victims, and from 7 percent to 34 percent in undercover police stings. In the former type of case, the authors note, the increase in the absolute number of arrests of young-adult offenders appears to account for the entire increase in that category—no other age group saw similar growth. At the same time, while 40 percent of offenders in 2000 possessed child pornography, only 21 percent did in 2006.

The authors suggest that this may be a consequence of younger adults, who came of age online, being more likely to seek out victims on the Internet than in other venues. Alternatively, it seems possible that the Internet, and in particular the advent of social networking, has simply increased the prevalence of social contacts between teens and college-age adults, who may in turn be more likely to think of each other as peers, even when the law does not. Cutting against that hypothesis is the finding that predators were significantly more likely in 2006 than in 2000 to misrepresent themselves as being teens as well.

Still, the overarching finding is that neither the Internet nor social networking sites pose unusual dangers for minors. As has always been the case, the underaged are most likely to be the victims of sex crimes perpetrated by acquaintances and family members, even if such cases are seldom featured on To Catch a Predator.

44 Reader Comments

I agree that there's a huge perceptual difference between the legal and social interactions of the college age group and the high school age group. It's easier now more than ever to keep in touch with people you knew in high school who perhaps were a class or two behind you. This lowers the barriers to "adults" who might be 18-20 for example, still thinking about dating that cute chick who was a sophomore because she might remain on your radar still, as opposed to falling off the radar when you leave high school as used to be the norm. In turn, she may find him more attractive as an "older college guy", and that leads can lead to all sorts of hanky panky that the legal set views as illicit. This is a real problem that leads to young adults being branded as sex offenders at the whim of the parents of the younger teenager. It's not what the law was intended to do, but it happens more often than people think.

In this day and age of the internet and teen sexting, we need to seriously sit down and figure out better ways to deal with this. The whole idea of "statutory rape" is misguided at best. Rape is rape, and should be punished as such. I can understand wanting to instill harsher punishments when an adult truly does rape a minor, and that's fine with me. However, much "statutory rape" was never really rape in the true sense of the word in the first place. We need to figure out, as a society, better ways to protect our children without resorting to the kinds of draconian land mines that plague young adults and teens. We need to face reality, and not live in some fantasy dreamworld.

But while efforts at protecting kids from predation on those sites often focus on efforts to block registered sex offenders, these represented only a tiny fraction (2-4 percent) of the predators in the survey cases

According to http://loveourchildrenusa.org/...stopsexoffenders.php -- by the way you may want to rethink that name -- there are 550,000 registered sex offenders in the US, or about 0.2% of the us population. So, ignoring an observational bias where you may be more likely to catch repeat offenders, it sounds like a registered sex offender is about 10-20 times more likely than an average person to commit an online sex crime against a minor. That is a reasonably large factor, but still quite a bit lower than I had expected, actually. I wonder if this is more to do with the dangers of recidivism being oversold or the overly broad criteria for requiring registration. I assume the latter. Certainly there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for people qualifying as a sex offender for bullshit reasons, but I don't know what fraction of sex offenders that actually represent.

But while efforts at protecting kids from predation on those sites often focus on efforts to block registered sex offenders, these represented only a tiny fraction (2-4 percent) of the predators in the survey cases

According to http://loveourchildrenusa.org/...stopsexoffenders.php -- by the way you may want to rethink that name -- there are 550,000 registered sex offenders in the US, or about 0.2% of the us population. So, ignoring an observational bias where you may be more likely to catch repeat offenders, it sounds like a registered sex offender is about 10-20 times more likely than an average person to commit an online sex crime against a minor. That is a reasonably large factor, but still quite a bit lower than I had expected, actually. I wonder if this is more to do with the dangers of recidivism being oversold or the overly broad criteria for requiring registration. I assume the latter. Certainly there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for people qualifying as a sex offender for bullshit reasons, but I don't know what fraction of sex offenders that actually represent.

Recidivism is also oversold. DOJ released a study a year or two ago which presented a pretty convincing case that sex offenders recidivism isn't particularly noteworthy when compared against other "crimes against people" (though the main problem is certainly the somewhat bizarre sex crime laws currently in effect for the 16-to-early-20's age range).

It'd be interesting to see what the stats show for states that have "Romeo and Juliette" laws, in regards to the online "stings" for that highschool<->college demarcation line.

I also would suspect that much of the "child pornography" possession increase is the result of the younger participant taking pictures of themselves and sending them to the older, ala the greatly publicized "sexting" case that's been in the headlines lately (or, hell, just the older went to 4chan and the "possession" is simply in the form of browser temp files from just about any freakin' 4chan forum -- how does that site not get shut down?) Most of the -chans seem to have an active population that's teens and early 20's.

uh yea.about this 4chan thing. i went there after hearing about the /b/ forums and its link to the group Anonymous some time ago. the place is awash with child porn. teens masturbating, taking pcis of themselves etc. i think the only reason its not shut down is that its usually the kids themselves uploading content of themselves. not necessarily being preyed upon. it was still quite disturbing to discover how many teens are willing to expose themselves on camera to strangers tho.

i panicked and almost formatted my machine after visiting there. im 25 with a decent career, certainly not trying to get pinched for child porn from some stupid imageboard.

I'm still amazed that someone can actually be charged for solicitation of a minor in a sting where no minor was involved - especially given the prevalence of sex-roleplay chat rooms on the internet. I know pedos are second-class citizens that shouldn't be treated as human beings and all, but why hasn't the ACLU made a fuss over it?

Originally posted by Fentras: I know pedos are second-class citizens that shouldn't be treated as human beings and all, but why hasn't the ACLU made a fuss over it?

Mostly because of that assumption that you just made. I'd wager that a good deal of the population would see them stripped of basic human rights, let alone due process.

One doesn't dare stick up for anything relating to pedophiles because that subject is just so amazingly taboo that nobody will touch it with a 100 foot pole. The ACLU already has a bit of an image problem, they're sure not going to stick up for "second class human beings"

I'm still amazed that someone can actually be charged for solicitation of a minor in a sting where no minor was involved

Are you still amazed that someone can be charged for solicitation of a prostitute when no prostitute was involved? I'm not, because it doesn't require a prostitute or a minor to show intent, just a retard looking for a good time.

Personally, I'd really like to see the transcripts of those online conversations. I know most of the guys should have known better, but when sting operators deliberately go into chat rooms and start conversations pretending to be hot teenagers looking for sex....

Are you still amazed that someone can be charged for solicitation of a prostitute when no prostitute was involved? I'm not, because it doesn't require a prostitute or a minor to show intent, just a retard looking for a good time.

I wonder if anyone's ever used the excuse "I knew it really was a cop the whole time. I was hoping for it. Cops doing pedophile stings are so hot. They're really my fetish. I could give a shit about kids."

I'm really having trouble with the age brackets of some of the offenders, too. While things like a 12yo and a 25yo aren't ok, a 17yo and a 19 yo are just fine, IMO, but they fall into the same breakdown of what counts as an offender.

On that note, I wonder if they have ever arrested someone who also ended up being underage, because he misrepresented his age to a "girl" he had the hots for online, because he thought she had a thing for older men. That would be some unintentional comedy there.

Frentras: I'm still amazed that someone can actually be charged for solicitation of a minor in a sting where no minor was involved - especially given the prevalence of sex-roleplay chat rooms on the internet. I know pedos are second-class citizens that shouldn't be treated as human beings and all, but why hasn't the ACLU made a fuss over it?

Years ago there used to be discussions involving stings and entrapment, which I don't clearly recall what entrapment looked like. Still with cases like this if the teen suggest the meeting or the adult, either case agreement from the adult probably just doesn't play well in court.

As for the second class citizen, this should not be the case, but it is. Sadly, the second class status often starts with the accusation with nothing proved in court. Completely innocent people who are eventually acquitted can be forced to deal with the devastating affects of the accusation, with family, friends and associates continuing to give them a wide berth long after the accusation is withdrawn or disproved. Given a choice though which would you prefer, to be accused and then have the charges dropped at some point or to go to trial and be acquitted? Some might say you'd have a better chance reestablishing credibility with your previous social structure via trial and acquittal because the public tends to behave near mindlessly when these kinds of charges are involved.

The fact that the majority of people still view the model pedophile as some cat trawling the internet and stalking kids with serious coercion to follow, demonstrates the hysteria surrounding the topic. There is no discussion anywhere that I've seen of the fact that most teens meeting old folks on the internet tend to know the age of and a great deal more about their "friend" better known to the rest of us as the old guy, despite his or her supposed decrepit status, while willfully and apparently with some anticipation agree to/or propose liaisons.

With more female teachers taking it to their young charges and increases in cases of males suing female bosses for sexual harassment and women suing women for sexual harassment, I think the social definition of who can be a predator will change as well. Wasn't there a case about Australia, a lady, a plane ticket, Warcraft and a US teen? Unfortunately, whatever the new stereotype may look like, I don't expect that it will be any more accurate until a real and sincere discussion on the topic can be had.

Originally posted by ArkAngel:With more female teachers taking it to their young charges and increases in cases of males suing female bosses for sexual harassment and women suing women for sexual harassment, I think the social definition of who can be a predator will change as well. Wasn't there a case about Australia, a lady, a plane ticket, Warcraft and a US teen? Unfortunately, whatever the new stereotype may look like, I don't expect that it will be any more accurate until a real and sincere discussion on the topic can be had.

I completely agree, but unfortunately one side of the debate is only interested in screaming, "CHILD PORN!", "PEDOPHILE!", "RAPIST!" at the top of their lungs. Also unfortunately, that side appears to be about 95% of the population.

Debates on sexuality make the evolution / creationism arguments look intelligent and well researched.

Originally posted by ArkAngel:With more female teachers taking it to their young charges and increases in cases of males suing female bosses for sexual harassment and women suing women for sexual harassment, I think the social definition of who can be a predator will change as well. Wasn't there a case about Australia, a lady, a plane ticket, Warcraft and a US teen? Unfortunately, whatever the new stereotype may look like, I don't expect that it will be any more accurate until a real and sincere discussion on the topic can be had.

I completely agree, but unfortunately one side of the debate is only interested in screaming, "CHILD PORN!", "PEDOPHILE!", "RAPIST!" at the top of their lungs. Also unfortunately, that side appears to be about 95% of the population.

Debates on sexuality make the evolution / creationism arguments look intelligent and well researched.

Sadly the humans are not that far of from animals. Seems that using your brains instead of whatever they are using is harder than one would expect.

And of that 550,000, how many of them are the result of over zealous prosecutors - like the teenage guy at a party who is give a bj by an underage girl (15) and becomes registered sex offender. There needs to be a big difference laid out between horny teens fucking and sucking each other senseless and a dirty old pervert getting his rocks off over children.

Originally posted by mhungry:The whole idea of "statutory rape" is misguided at best. Rape is rape, and should be punished as such. I can understand wanting to instill harsher punishments when an adult truly does rape a minor, and that's fine with me. However, much "statutory rape" was never really rape in the true sense of the word in the first place. We need to figure out, as a society, better ways to protect our children without resorting to the kinds of draconian land mines that plague young adults and teens. We need to face reality, and not live in some fantasy dreamworld.

Rape is not just a knife in a dark alley. Rape is the absense of consent, and if one is below the culturally defined age of consent it IS rape. One would not presume a 3 year old can possibly give informed consent, so any sexual activity with a 3 year old is rape. What about 10? 14? 17? At what age we think someone CAN give consent is something which is not universally defined. The teenagers involved usually disagree, of course, but I knew everything when I was 15, too. :-)

A 17 year old and an 18 year old are not so different even if the 18 year old is legally an adult. 14 and 18 is a whole different matter. So in most jurisidictions, statutory rape laws specifically exclude interactions between people relatively close in age for just this reason. For example, (in a hypothetical jurisdiction), if the age of legal consent is 16, it still isn't statutory rape unless the other party is over 19.

There are exceptions, many of which are highly publicized, but for the most part it works.

Originally posted by mhungry:The whole idea of "statutory rape" is misguided at best. Rape is rape, and should be punished as such. I can understand wanting to instill harsher punishments when an adult truly does rape a minor, and that's fine with me. However, much "statutory rape" was never really rape in the true sense of the word in the first place. We need to figure out, as a society, better ways to protect our children without resorting to the kinds of draconian land mines that plague young adults and teens. We need to face reality, and not live in some fantasy dreamworld.

Rape is not just a knife in a dark alley. Rape is the absense of consent, and if one is below the culturally defined age of consent it IS rape. One would not presume a 3 year old can possibly give informed consent, so any sexual activity with a 3 year old is rape. What about 10? 14? 17? At what age we think someone CAN give consent is something which is not universally defined. The teenagers involved usually disagree, of course, but I knew everything when I was 15, too. :-)

A 17 year old and an 18 year old are not so different even if the 18 year old is legally an adult. 14 and 18 is a whole different matter. So in most jurisidictions, statutory rape laws specifically exclude interactions between people relatively close in age for just this reason. For example, (in a hypothetical jurisdiction), if the age of legal consent is 16, it still isn't statutory rape unless the other party is over 19.

There are exceptions, many of which are highly publicized, but for the most part it works.

Funny how you can end up in jail for your crimes but not decide that you want to have sex. After all when it comes to crimes kids are never too young (it's creeping down all the time). But when it's about sex than you are never old enough to say yes.

Weird, a raise in 18-25 year old sexual predators? Have any of you ever heard of 4chan?

Being 24, I will admit that there are 16-17 year olds who are physically attractive, but there are also 18-23 year olds who are also physically attractive and easier to talk to

In the end, the stigma of being a registered sex offender in the country should be enough for anyone to stay away from jail bait. It doesn't matter what arguments you can make, in the end people are just going to judge you regardless.

Much like murder, it just seems easier for people to focus on the relatively small number of cases that are committed by complete strangers rather than the vast majority of both molestations and murders that are committed by people you are related to or at least have some kind of relationship with.

Originally posted by mhungry:However, much "statutory rape" was never really rape in the true sense of the word in the first place.

I believe the idea is that one of the people is not deemed competent to make such a big decision for themselves. I know a girl that was essentially woo'd by her personal sports instructor at 15 (she was competing internationally). Her instructor was over 30. Her mom picked up the girl's phone one day and browsed through the text messages where she discovered the girl was planning on running off with the guy. Now, after years of counseling, she is relatively normal again.

Now, by essentially everyone's view involved, she wasn't mature enough to be making the decisions that she was, and the older man used his age and position to take advantage of her sexually. If she isn't legally able to make the decision to have sex, then it wasn't consensual, and would be a form of rape, though admittedly not in the classic sense. But is she really not capable of making that decision, and is an age really the best way to determine that?

Did the man do anything that should be wrong under the law? What should he be charged with? I think the opinions on this vary wildly, making it difficult to formulate a definitive statement.

(For the record, I favor a position that at least labels the man as a predator and prevents him from working with minors in the future.)

I'm still amazed that someone can actually be charged for solicitation of a minor in a sting where no minor was involved

Are you still amazed that someone can be charged for solicitation of a prostitute when no prostitute was involved? I'm not, because it doesn't require a prostitute or a minor to show intent, just a retard looking for a good time.

No - the cop's still a person and is still there - they actually are the prostitute by the act of soliciting, whether or not the deal goes through. By the general tactic of stings, police in the situation are above the law in offereing to provide (or claiming to offer to provide) goods or services that are both illegal to buy and to sell. In these stings no minor is present, the other person spoken to is an adult. In the end you have only solicited an adult who's into ageplay.

Originally posted by mhungry:However, much "statutory rape" was never really rape in the true sense of the word in the first place.

I believe the idea is that one of the people is not deemed competent to make such a big decision for themselves. I know a girl that was essentially woo'd by her personal sports instructor at 15 (she was competing internationally). Her instructor was over 30. Her mom picked up the girl's phone one day and browsed through the text messages where she discovered the girl was planning on running off with the guy. Now, after years of counseling, she is relatively normal again.

Now, by essentially everyone's view involved, she wasn't mature enough to be making the decisions that she was, and the older man used his age and position to take advantage of her sexually. If she isn't legally able to make the decision to have sex, then it wasn't consensual, and would be a form of rape, though admittedly not in the classic sense. But is she really not capable of making that decision, and is an age really the best way to determine that?

Did the man do anything that should be wrong under the law? What should he be charged with? I think the opinions on this vary wildly, making it difficult to formulate a definitive statement.

(For the record, I favor a position that at least labels the man as a predator and prevents him from working with minors in the future.)

I see your and NicoleC's point here, but here is my take on this: women are, biologically speaking, set up to start desiring and preparing for reproduction anywhere as early as age 13 or as late as age 16. I am not entirely certain on the ages of the onset of puberty for teenage boys as I never was one. But, I suspect it should be approximately the same, give or take a few years.

As such, what "statutory rape" laws are doing is assigning an arbitrary age to counteract that which nature is telling us we are ready to do. While I agree that not all teenagers are educated and mature enough to make potentially life-long decisions such as what sex can entail, their bodies are telling them to go get laid. Hell, for that case, there are certified adults that are not educated or mature enough to make the decision to have sex.

Traditionally speaking, women are always attracted to older men because traditionally women's parents would arrange a marriage with an older man who already had land, financial security, etc. Men traditionally speaking are attracted to younger women because that presented more child-bearing years.

What we are trying to do is impose laws counter to what how society and the world over has developed and then socially irrevocably crippling some of the offenders even if their crimes were only trivial at best, at worst, giving into natural inclinations.

Adults who prey upon anyone, regardless of age, are people who should be punished. But to try and scream that a 15-year-old girl who is going through "those changes" is being raped when she chooses to go have sex with an older man (say 23-years-old). That's how it was done for centuries upon centuries before the last 100 years or so.

So no, I don't buy into the "rape" part of "statutory rape" simply because the kid isn't supposedly capable of making informed decisions. If their bodies are telling them it's right, we really cannot do anything to stop them.

It's also been pretty firmly established through psycological studies that rape is about power, violence, and control, not sex. While the idea of being attracted to a minor in a real, sexual way is probably sickening to most people doesn't mean that it isn't what some people feel. It's splitting hairs to some, but "rape" isn't the appropriate word to use when it is, in fact, about sex.

AxMi-24: Funny how you can end up in jail for your crimes but not decide that you want to have sex. After all when it comes to crimes kids are never too young (it's creeping down all the time). But when it's about sex than you are never old enough to say yes.

I have been baffled by this for some time. One of children's earliest and most long standing lessons involve our clothes and inappropriate touching. Still, some how the assumption is that if a teen and sex are involved, somehow they can't possibly know what they're doing even though there's been a great deal of discussion about keeping your clothes on and not letting folks touch you, taking place over a long period of time. Yet, despite parents not typically sending their kids off to school or to play with admonishments that they not steal, kill or maim somehow the law decides that they know full well what they are doing, when they choose to well steal, kill or maim. Interestingly, 11+ year olds and sometimes younger can be charged with rape and molestation of same aged and younger. So, while not legally be able to consent, they can definitely choose to engage in sexual behavior by force apparently and be charged with the crime. Clearly discussions of teens and sex result in the same sort of misguided and disjointed if seemingly insane conversational mind-*3ck that talks of our other biggest hang-up tends to result in. That hang up being alcohol and the fact that an 18 year old can handle explosive armaments and weapons unto death and dismemberment, but has to wait another 3 years for a beer.

The truth is parents have a huge bias where sex and their children are concerned period, regardless the age. How do we know? How many 25 and 30+ year olds are having a difficult time getting their parents to accept their choice in partners, when to start a family and other related discussions. From a scientific standpoint, if you are eliminating the range of ages starting at say 16 up and you hit 25 and 30 and parents are still telling their children they're not ready or accepting their kids choices where relationship is concerned, it becomes clear that parents use of age for teens not having sex isn't necessarily an entirely honest discussion potentially. Especially if the reasons given are the same and the kid is hitting 30.

Of special note: have you ever observed a child either extremely sexual or/and seeming to appear good and gay. Ever notice the degree of denial and accompanying defensiveness that the parents can sometimes display. Years ago, I taught parenting classes and I would observe that sometimes parents were coming to me about a son or daughter climbing out windows and sneaking off, but they were always trying to blame the person their child was going to see. I agree that there is a such thing as rape, clearly. I also agree that if a child is lying, deceiving, stealing and any number of other things on their way to sexual congress, the whole older people have mastered the jedi mind trick is hard to swallow. I have seen it time and time again where the parents are trying to blame an older boyfriend, whether its their son or daughter in question. Magically the other person is responsible for the lies their children are telling them, their child stealing their car or money and their child sneaking out of their house. At this point you really have to wonder how it is when sex is involved, is it that teens can't really choose as they apparently can with ALL else or is it that as parents, believing such allows us to see our children as we so desperately want/need to see them vs. who they are which might entail placing some blame at the feet or our prince or princess.

Originally posted by iquanyin:wow, i'm impressed at the intelligent, flame-free nature of the discussion here. glad i joined ars!

I actually came into the comments to make a Simpsons joke, and the fact that so many people here are actually using complete sentences and punctuation makes me somewhat ashamed of that.

Anyway, one problem I see with a lot of the comments here is that they are doing exactly what they are deriding: not looking into the context of the particular case. Yes, I fully agree that it is insane that an 18 year old can get arrest for having sex with a 17 year old. It's even a bit insane that a 25 year old can get arrested for having sex with a 15 year old (as another poster already mentioned, by the age of 15, the vast majority of girls have already begun ovulating), as it seems a bit crazy that we are arresting people for something that 200 years ago was not only common, but was the norm. I get the feeling that childbirth being such a dangerous process back then has something to do with the early age that females got married, and that childhood being *relatively* safe nowadays is a factor in the increase in marriage age, but I have nothing to back that up with.

But there are real child molesters out there. There are people who molest 8 year olds. Pretending that every single male your child meets is a child molester is idiotic. But pretending they for all intents and purposes don't exist and that they are a complete media myth, as some seem to be doing in this forum, is even more idiotic, in my opinion. The former is just natural paternalism. The later is dangerously close to conspiratorial thinking.

The internet:Where men are men, women are men and children are FBI agents.

Paedo shit has completely messed with my head, to the point where i was taking my friends kid out to McDonnalds and when his daiper needed changed i requested that some completely random woman escort me out of guilt (he was crying for his parents) to "back me up" should anyone even consider me as a child molester or a deviant.

Im overall a generaly well balanced guy but seem to get completely paranoid about this issue.

As for dating i follow the solid social norm of (age/2)+7 just to stay inside the boundries of whats acceptable which when i think about it is completely insane the older i get.

Chromauk: McDonnalds and when his daiper needed changed i requested that some completely random woman escort me out of guilt (he was crying for his parents) to "back me up" should anyone even consider me as a child molester or a deviant.

Don't feel bad, fathers in my classes used to complain that they felt they had to deal with their daughters more distantly as they grew older because they would start to notice questioning stares from random folks when out and about. This can be exceptionally hard on father daughter relationships where the daughter is a daddy's girl. I used to have to explain to some moms that children pick the parent that they identify with most, not the parents typically. Dads who take their children/daughters to the bathroom and send them into the ladies bathroom really get some stares while sitting outside waiting.

The proportion of younger adult offenders, aged 18-25, rose from 23 percent to 40 percent of arrests in cases with actual underage victims

quote:

Alternatively, it seems possible that the Internet, and in particular the advent of social networking, has simply increased the prevalence of social contacts between teens and college-age adults, who may in turn be more likely to think of each other as peers, even when the law does not. Cutting against that hypothesis is the finding that predators were significantly more likely in 2006 than in 2000 to misrepresent themselves as being teens as well.

How much of that "significantly more likely" is due to the increase of "younger adult offenders" who actually are teens (18-19)?

Originally posted by Fentras:While the idea of being attracted to a minor in a real, sexual way is probably sickening to most people doesn't mean that it isn't what some people feel.

I'm perfectly willing to admit being attracted to minors, and I challenge anyone who thinks that makes me the least bit perverted, or "sick" (I'm 25, btw). When girls sexually mature around 12-14, calling a 16 year old a "child" and trying to stigmatize the idea of being sexually attracted to her is rather dubious, to say the least. I am not, however, attracted to actual children...

quote:

Originally posted by tpg0007:Maybe we should rethink the definition of "children."

In short, this.

------

I understand parents dislike the idea of their girls having relationships with older men, and let's be honest, parents tend to get apoplectic whenever the sexuality of their daughters (especially their daughters) is concerned, regardless of the guy's age. Fine. I'm not a parent, but I understand being protective. On the other hand, maintaining that a 15 or 16 year old girl, while no doubt somewhat immature, is incapable of having consensual sex, is nonsense.

So, Pamel, in your story, there's difficulty, because the man was already in a position of power, authority, and influence over the girl, so that may complicate things. How can anyone tell the degree to which she was coerced by him? It may be impossible, even for her, to know. I'm not sure the best way to deal with those cases. Keep in mind, however, that there's certainly an amount of coercion in every human interaction, especially where sex is concerned. So, it's muddy. I am of the opinion, however, that it's entirely possible for a 30 year old and a 15 year old to have a free, non-coercive, consensual sexual relationship. And if they do, the 30 year old shouldn't be demonized or called a pervert. It just might be tricky to tell whether the relationship is, in fact, non-coercive. I'll grant you that. Let's be clear, though (just as an aside). Even if it is, it doesn't make the 30 year old a pervert. It may make him an asshole and a bully, but there's nothing perverted (or paedophilic) about being attracted to a sexually mature individual, regardless of the age difference involved.

Originally posted by naphini:maintaining that a 15 or 16 year old girl, while no doubt somewhat immature, is incapable of having consensual sex, is nonsense

They are (mostly) sexually mature, but not mentally, so they aren't in any position to grant consent. That's why there's an age of consent. Globally, especially outside the US, that age is typically 15 or 16. Obviously the US is quite fucked up in that regard.

quote:

the man was already in a position of power, authority, and influence over the girl

Typically that would be rape no matter the ages, or at least some kind of coercion. Universities have the same problem. Certainly any workplaces would treat it as a potential ethics violation.

quote:

How can anyone tell the degree to which she was coerced by him?

Again, that's because they're mentally/emotionally immature, and how they aren't in a position to give consent.

quote:

I am of the opinion, however, that it's entirely possible for a 30 year old and a 15 year old to have a free, non-coercive, consensual sexual relationship. And if they do, the 30 year old shouldn't be demonized or called a pervert

Outside the US. It's still slightly frowned-upon, as 15 is still not fully matured and not even trusted to vote, but hey.

Originally posted by NW:They are (mostly) sexually mature, but not mentally, so they aren't in any position to grant consent. That's why there's an age of consent. Globally, especially outside the US, that age is typically 15 or 16. Obviously the US is quite fucked up in that regard.

They are too in a position to grant consent. It's not illegal for a 15 year old to fuck another 15 year old is it? It ain't rape unless it's rape, and then it doesn't matter how old you are.

quote:

Originally posted by NW:

quote:

How can anyone tell the degree to which she was coerced by him?

Again, that's because they're mentally/emotionally immature, and how they aren't in a position to give consent.

No, I don't think so. As you said just previous to this, when an asymmetrical power relationship is involved, coercion is an issue no matter the relative ages. I admit that a large age discrepancy can itself be seen as an asymmetrical power relationship, since a young girl might be intimidated by an older man, and if the man uses this to manipulate the girl into having sex, then he is in fact guilty of harm. But again, the issue is power and coercion, both of which can be present in any relationship for a variety of reasons. The issue is not age difference itself.

In my opinion, the age of consent ought to be lowered to the typical age at which people become sexually mature. 14 or 15 or so. If it's consensual, great. If it's coercive, it's sexual harrasment, and we have laws for that already. If it's rape, it's rape, and we have laws for that already. There will still be a cultural stigma against relationships of extreme age difference, and that's fine. But having a law (in the U.S.) that makes a thought criminal out of every adult male in the country is insane.

Originally posted by Cherlindrea:If their bodies are telling them it's right, we really cannot do anything to stop them.

Ugh, the premise of this argument is so flawed that it hurts. Someone going through detox knows that they are no longer capable of making decisions regarding what their body is telling them to do. Just because their body is telling them to snort a line doesn't mean they should or that they are capable of making a good decision. A five year old's body is telling them they need some candy? Is that really any different?

There is a lot to be said about how to judge people, especially in regard to their ability to form decisions. But, "I wanted to" is not a reason, and I would argue to be the primary cause of issues in the world today.

Just because your body is going through physiological changes that cause cravings does not mean that you have the capacity to make a proper decision regarding them, or that anyone should ever follow the craving.

Pamel, I understand where you are trying to go with this. Unfortunately, the poor decisions that teens make, can be observed in people in their 50s and 60s. "My mind's telling me no but my body, my body, it's telling me yessessesss....." aside from being an R. Kelly hook actually sounds just like infidelity which can be found in all aged couples. My argument is simply that a reasonable society should be able to have reasoned discussion about topics. Too much of what we feel about our children influences so much of what we say about our children.

Society has an extreme bias about asymmetrical relationships, but with such a bias you would expect that couples where both parties are of the same exact age must be perfect couples. Hello, they are not. Whether both are 15 & 15 or 50 & 50, you see the exact same outcomes across the range of good and bad behaviors. Every single thing that society attempts to attribute to teens, you see the same behavior in full blown adults (we are a virus says the earth). As I said above a 16 year old who wants to date Person A and hears a particular response from their parents of why they shouldn't date Person A, may actually get the same argument from their parents of why they shouldn't marry person T, only now they are 30 years old.

The duality that does not serve our teens well at all is when we tell them that they can't consent to sex because it is such a life important decision, but when a 12 year old goes out and does something stupid, DAs routinely try them as adults, while spouting words like horrendous, heinous and monstrous. When we try children as adults, we are saying that legally they were functioning as an adult and so will forfeit some portion of their life because of the adult decision they made (which oddly sounds a lot like getting pregnant). There is no other way to interpret that. Yet imagine, if the same 12 year old were involved with an 18+ years old, the exact same DA would be screaming how innocent and pure the same 12 year old is as they attempt to get the 18+ year old convicted. This is ridiculous and laughable, but very true. Still it does not stop there.

At 18 you may enlist and die for the country handling all sorts of life threatening situations, oh but we value your life so much that while we don't mind you being cannon fodder we need you to wait another 3 years before you down that 40, because well life is precious.

We are talking about the same exact brain. If the law says that teens can not make adult decisions, fine, but then charge them as children and let them face child consequences. If the lives of our teens are so important, then lets live by that. If they can't drink until 21, they should not have to die for the country until the same age.

While I am not going to completely disagree with your maturity opinion, the fact that you are comparing perfectly natural human sexual urges to drug addiction is something you really need to reevaluate. Getting hooked on coke, and going through puberty are in no way alike.

For all interested here is an article up on Salon about a young 12 year old that is a registered sex offender. Read through the comments. It is scary. All of these I care about the children, but that one's a monster, wow. Shocking and sad.